To put the Nikon D750 (affiliate) through its paces for the (upcoming) review of this camera, I met up with NYC model, Glass Olive for a photo session. In a restaurant we visited, I used the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG (for Nikon) (affiliate) at f/1.4 and then tried sequences of images at 3200 ISO and 6400 ISO. Here are two more images, and a 100% crop of each so you can see what the noise pattern looks like.

A few things to keep in mind when looking at the two images:

the RAW converters haven’t been updated yet for this brand-new camera, so we are looking at the embedded JPG (at full resolution) that I extracted from the RAW file. So this is the straight-out-of-camera JPG with a slight detour. These could very well be improved upon when adjusting the RAW file.

I kept the JPG settings to the defaults, but these were shot in Vivid picture mode. So it looks quite punchy directly out of camera.
In Vivid picture mode, the Sharpening is set to the middle value: 4.00
The Clarity was set to +1.00
(The WB was set to Auto 1)

looking at 100% crops give you an idea of the high-ISO noise, which helps with comparison. But, it is not how the image will print. We are looking at a 24 megapixel image. It’s huge. By the time you print it to smaller sizes, the noise is much less pronounced.

Using the Nikon D750 at 3200 ISO

camera settings: 1/60 @ f/1.4 @ 3200 ISO

Here is the 100% crop of the area to the left of our model.

Using the Nikon D750 at 6400 ISO

camera settings: 1/80 @ f/1.4 @ 6400 ISO

Here is the 100% crop of the area to the right of our model.

Summary

With these very first test shots with the camera, I am quite impressed. Actually, very impressed. The noise is very well controlled for such extreme ISO settings.

Hello Neil, I just received the D750 yesterday and I’m very impressed with the ISO performance of this camera. First thing I did was to take several test shots at 6400 ISO and wow! Leaves my old D700’s in the dust. I will be purchasing a second one soon.

6400 isnt really high iso any longer. Really love to see how it compares with other CURRENT models rather than 5 yr old models. ie….the DF and D4s sensors, that have been out for 1yr plus already. SOOC standard jpegs are fine for this sort of comparo or commentary. If you could elaborate on how the 750 compared to those..it’d be much more useful.

I’m with Brad on this! I was hoping to see ISO examples at 12,000 or so in this post. I already comfortably shoot at 6400/8000 with my d3s at weddings! Slightly overexposing then bringing back down in post makes ISO 8,000 pretty usable even with a D3s.

And here I can barely go above ISO800 on my Canon 50D, 1600 is useable but not desirable and 3200 should have been left in the lab and not even put in there, very bad. By the time I can afford a good ISO performer there will be a Canon 5D Mark 17 out.

To “Marvin Litman” you said: “At ISO 3200 the photos are not that good.”

Sure looks good to me!

P.S. Please test out your Canon 5D mark III against any of the more recent Nikon full frame cameras. If the tests I saw on YouTube where honest &/or not a fluke, Canon’s high ISO is not the same as Nikon’s. This test had a D800 and a 5D mark III both filming side by side, and with the same ISO set on both. The Nikon was much brighter than the Canon. Meaning the Nikon should have its ISO turned down (lower) to match the same brightness of the Canon. This is to say that Canon 6400 ISO was equivalent to 3200 ISO (or less) on the Nikon; same light and subject. This test suggested that Canon 5D mark III showed higher ISO numbers than was the actual real ISO it was working at (compared to the Nikon’s more light sensitivity at the same ISO, and therefore less high ISO needed).

To be fair, at extreme high ISO the Nikon D800 became too noisy to be usable, while the Canon still produced a usable image. The Nikon peaked at one point and then became unusable. Then Canon 5D mark III continued to have usable images (not great though) as high as you could crank it.

12MP vs. 24MP? Downsampled to 12MP you will have more detail + cleaner images. The D700 sensor was great, but it is outdated by now. The bar for high ISO is the D4/D4s sensor with Nikon, A7s with Sony and 6D with Canon.

So if you are correct and the D750 images “don’t look much better” than the D700, but with double the resolution, this is fantastic! To even just look the same at 24mp vs 12mp is a wish come true for many photographers.

If you are only looking at your photos on your computer and never crop, then sure buy a used D700 for a lot less money.

If however (1) you occasionally need ROOM TO CROP, (2) wish to make PRINTS at LARGER SIZES than the modest size the D700 allows. Yes, you can interpolate your D700 to get more pixels to print larger than what is native, but you also can do this with the D750, with double the resolution to start with. (3) If you want to use your camera for VIDEO (which the D700 doesn’t have). (4) If you ever use LIVE VIEW and / or LIVE VIEW FOCUSING. This feature works way better on the newer cameras, for both AF and MF. The live view on the D700 isn’t in the same category. (5) If you have a use for the D750’s FLIP OUT LCD.

Computer gazers can produce decent images with an iPhone. For low light photography without flash, the latest entry level APSc cameras with a f/1.8 (or faster) prime is more than enough for computer monitor viewing.

For photographers who want to print, and / or display their photos and videos on a high resolution large screen TV, the newest full frame cameras should not disappoint!

There aren’t any direct comparisons between the D700 and D750 there, but if you look at how the D700 fares against the D4S, and then compare that the D750 and D4S are pretty much on par … then it is easy enough an observation that the D750 outperforms the D700. And it does so at a higher resolution.

Thanks for this Neil, they seem much better than what I can achieve with my D3. Surprised at so many negative comments from people who seem to expect so much from a few test shots! Would they prefer nothing? It’s like Statler and Waldorf on comment sections sometimes.

LOL !!
Nice one Neil.
Bought one last week.
Still haven had a chance to give it a good run !
I’m a bit surprised that i can switch from the D4 to the D750 and back to the D4 without much problems.
Of course i had to match my settings/controls(much as possible).
Really nice “little” Dslr.

Thanks Neil. I always appreciate your insights and experience, and I think it is nice of you to share them. I am also looking forward to reading the new book. I can’t quite fathom some of these responses. It’s like handing someone a free cookie and having them yell at you because it is not their favorite flavor… or it’s too small… or they just had dessert so why didn’t you give it to them 30 minutes ago :o)

i would love if you could make a review of the Nikon 35 1.8 FX or share your thoights on this lens if you already made some experiences with the lens you already recommend it by the way…

I have some doubts if I should choose the 28 or the 35 1.8 FX…..leaning to the 28 somehow…the wider thebetter (could easily crop if more tele is needed due to high resolution bodies nowadays or going closer 28 is still possible for nice portraitures as you have shown within your review of the 28 1.8..uncropping the other way around isnt possible! You justt have to be slightly more careful when shooting people with a 28 than with the 35mm stretching, distortion….still undecided which is optically superior or better???